IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2498 of 2023 Sushila Devi @ Sushila, aged about 76 years, W/o Late Ram Sharan Prasad, Resident of 1/A Mangal Deep Appartment, Gurunanank Nagar, P.O., P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Ms. Vani Kumari, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. Order No.07/Dated- 12.02.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding along with the cognizance order dated 04.09.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Mango P.S. Case No.45 of 2021 consequent G.R. Case No.1651 of 2021 dated 13.02.2021 registered for the offences under Sections 323/324/326/341/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder, learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of offences under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is counter case also and the present petitioner is an old lady aged about 78 years, has been falsely implicated on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. No specific role has been attributed against her but charge-sheet has been submitted against her and cognizance order has been passed vide order dated 04.09.2021 in G.R. Case No. 1651 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 45 of 2021 which is quite illegal and not sustainable under law and this petition may be allowed and impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the above contention of the petitioner and submitted that the cognizance of offence has been taken for non-cognizable offences and at the stage of taking cognizance, the matter of pendency of counter case itself guarantees the happening of the incident. No appreciation of every material and contested questions is required to be considered. He has also placed reliance upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement rendered in the case of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539. 5. It appears from the perusal of the records that the F.I.R. has been lodged with the allegation that on 13.02.2021, the accused persons were breaking the lock of a shop at Dimna Road. Upon seeing this, the informant namely Varun Prasad alerted his father, Nawal Kishore Prasad, who rushed to the spot and attempted to stop the accused persons. It has further been alleged that the accused persons assaulted informant’s father and also snatched Rs.7,000/- from the pocket and a gold chain from the neck of the informant. It has further been alleged that nearby people attempted to intervene but despite this, the informant, his father and his mother sustained injuries. 6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has also been submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. At this stage of the proceeding, there is no legal requirement to interfere with the impugned order as the petitioner has taken probable defence in her plea which has to be agitated at the time of the trial of the case. Therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin